Come on mods, there is absolutely nothing trollish about what he said here. It arguably states the facts of the situation better than the OP's comment which is currently at +5.
It's more than most people have liquid but it's certainly not more than most people can reasonably pay. After all, most adults have a house, a car, and if necissary wages for the next 10 years. It's not like they expect you to write out a check the day after the trial is over. Yes, it's still wildly disproportionate, but at least it I am mentally capable of imagining it is an amount the people who wrote the law might have expected; something that I can't say about the original award.
and yet I wonder if the guy whose body they came from will get any piece of the profits.. Let's hope he does..
Why?
The only logically reason why he deserves anything would be to encourage others to get tested for similar things, and I don't see too many researchers looking desperately looking for random people to come forward and have their antibodies tested.
On the other hand, if you're really that likely to get cancer and die during the 4 month course I think that would be pretty important information to know about. In fact, personally I would call getting that information but missing out on the class a net win. As long as they don't start using genome studies to test for intelligence, aggression, or work ethic I honestly think that the right laws and regulations can control the situation.
Hardly the same thing, in my opinion. We know the power densities required to move cargo and people through the air at acceptable speeds and solar just cannot realistically supply it. This thing has the wing span of a 777 and the carrying capacity of an ultralight. Even assuming that you can increase the efficiency of the solar cells by five times you're still not talking anything remotely practical for commercial use.
Don't get me wrong, it's some very impressive technology. An unmanned variant might someday even has some military and civilian uses but it's never going to replace our chemically powered, high speed transportation aircraft.
Biking requires I bring a bike along everywhere I go. It's also much more difficult to converse with others while biking, especially biking at 30 mph. Not that I don't see what you're saying, but I don't think you're getting what the potential use for this would be. They want to connect airports to hotels, stadiums to bus stops and parking lots, areas where a large number of people are coming and going to/from the same place all at once. In that kind of situation a bike is somewhat less practical due to traffic and storage issues.
In all seriousness, why is this modded as funny? Twenty percent of reported domestic abusers are female, despite the fact that a man is less likely to turn in his wife and that the police are less likely to take the case seriously due to cultural effects. Some studies have even shown that female on male spousal abuse is the more common form, though it is less physically damaging. Mothers abuse children more frequently than fathers, physical confrontations in schools are becoming increasingly perpetrated by females, and all of that says nothing to the more traditional forms of psychological and emotional aggressiveness practiced by many women.
To be fair, if you browse the comments after things have settled down a bit you generally get the corrections long before most other sites get around to posting corrections (if they ever do). There were several comments in the earlier article that were rated up that say... well, basically exactly what this article says.
I guess I wasn't very clear. I mean inserting the ad into the video itself, not as a 'commercial' but as the video is playing it takes over the bottom 20% and/or shrinks the video to fit. Basically what most cable TV channels do when they are playing the credits of one show, they shrink it down and use some of the screen to advertise what's next. Ultimately, Google has the video, they could edit it as much as they want before serving it to you.
How many times have you gone looking through apps, found something that looked pretty good, installed it, and it was crap?
None. Not once in fact. You see, those reviews and stars are there for a reason. If something gets crap reviews, don't buy it. In exchange for requiring that tiny bit of due diligence, I have several apps that would never make it though Apple's approval process. Apps that would require voiding my warranty to get on the i-Devices.
Couldn't they just insert the ads directly into the video stream? It would certainly take a bit more processing time on their end, especially if they were trying to match the ad with you personally, but there's no reason it couldn't be done. And to make matters worse there wouldn't be any good way to close or remove the ad, so the ads would actually be worse with an HTML5 player.
That particular episode of Top Gear is (especially) derided as FUD. The car never ran out of batteries, they never recharged the car (just an off the cuff remark about it taking 16 hours to charge from their windmill(!?)), and the 'brake down' that they reported was a blown fuse (not a drive train one either, just a regular one like could and does happen in every car). The put the car into neutral and pushed it off the track to 'show what would happen if you ran out of charge', obviously you could say the exact same thing about running out of gas on the track.
To me, that really brought to light just how much the people at Top Gear are biased towards the cars that they like and against the cars that they don't.
Well, you could argue that most actresses essentially run their own business, they have assistants to a greater or lesser extent but in the end they are selling a product. Everyone always assumes that actresses are stupid, the reality is that while they are doubtlessly attractive, even if they're in the top.01% of women that still leaves an awful lot of competition. Look at Pamela Anderson, how much money has she made over the years selling what basically amounts to her personality and appearance? That does in fact take a kind of intelligence, maybe different from a PHD in economics kind of intelligence, but certainly still intelligence.
Somebody better lock up Winnie Cooper before she steals all our secrets then. (Not to mention a host of other beautiful women who just happen to be highly educated).
Hardly in the upper echelons but based on the security briefings I've received the answer is tiny, insignificant bits and pieces that you would tell anyone in passing but which can be put together to see the bigger picture. Of course, this was during a briefing about how important it was to keep secret things secret so that might be an exageration to instil a sense that the little things are important but the techniques they warned against backed up their statements. Engineers in particular are apparently susceptible to minor insults against a project they are working on. They will jump to devend it even if it means leaking non-trivial details.
As an example: Spy - "I heard that the Air Force's new radios can't even do X" Engineer - "What!? of course it can do X, we can even do X with Y and Z!"
Where X, Y, and Z are small details that are never the less classified information.
I run the portable apps version of FF which takes a very long time to boot so I leave it open as much as possible. Anywhere from 2-20 tabs, usually runs for weeks at a time without problems. Of course, I only have three extensions installed, one that is massively established (adblock), one that is trivial (mobile barcode generator), and one that occasionally causes problems (Ubiquity). I suspect that people with stability and/or memory leak problems are running extensions which are the root cause. Personally, I don't feel that it's fair to let the FF team off the hook for that though, they really need to find a good way to prevent addons from breaking the browser.
There's a pretty big difference between spraying DDT on interior surfaces (to kill misquotes that are entering the home) and using it on breeding grounds (to massively reduce the mosquito population). Yes, killing the bugs that enter homes is nice, and probably reduces infection rates, but destroying the breeding population is the proven way to (nearly) eradicate malaria.
It's amazing, $5 million spent and no progress made on something that you could probably do with a few grand in software, and few grand in hardware and setup, and volunteer labor for the data entry. You could make it part of the tour for crying out loud, 'sit down and enter a few names as you go through', double or triple completed to ensure accuracy of course.
From the Koran: "The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old"
Or, possibly 16 and 19, depending on the translation. Just sayin.
DDT probably could, but no one is quite sure what that would to their environment over there so no one is willing to give it a shot. People forget that malaria was a problem in the Americas too until the mosquito population was decimated by pesticides massively slowing the infection rate; combined with rapid quarantine and treatment of infected individuals it all but eliminated malaria from two continents.
No, hating a person who is Jewish because of their behavior is fine. Hating all Jews because of their perceived behavior and opinions is racism. You don't see the difference there? In the first one, it is a person's own behavior that is causing others to hate them; in the second one, it is the behavior of others that causes the hatred.
Apparently you'd like to re-frame your statement to compare their 'Bigots live here' to '[X believer] lives here'. There's still a huge difference. There's lots of religious people who support gay marriage. There's presumably people who are against gay marriage who aren't believers (though probably not many). Just because an opinion is based on religious reasoning doesn't put that opinion above disdain from everyone else.
consider how we would view people spray-painting signs saying "Jews live here", say?
That seems like a false equivalence to me. There's a big difference between hating someone for their race and hating someone for their opinions and behavior. Hatred based on one's race is irrational, hatred based on one's behavior is not. I'm not saying that spray painting on the side of their house is right, just saying that it isn't the same as racial hatred.
They already spend 90% of their time posturing, put every act they do on public record and literally nothing will be done because no one can every be seen to be weak (and by that I mean reasonable, compromising, or swayed by facts).
Slashdot Mirror
Come on mods, there is absolutely nothing trollish about what he said here. It arguably states the facts of the situation better than the OP's comment which is currently at +5.
'-1 Troll' != 'I Disagree'
It's more than most people have liquid but it's certainly not more than most people can reasonably pay. After all, most adults have a house, a car, and if necissary wages for the next 10 years. It's not like they expect you to write out a check the day after the trial is over. Yes, it's still wildly disproportionate, but at least it I am mentally capable of imagining it is an amount the people who wrote the law might have expected; something that I can't say about the original award.
and yet I wonder if the guy whose body they came from will get any piece of the profits.. Let's hope he does..
Why?
The only logically reason why he deserves anything would be to encourage others to get tested for similar things, and I don't see too many researchers looking desperately looking for random people to come forward and have their antibodies tested.
On the other hand, if you're really that likely to get cancer and die during the 4 month course I think that would be pretty important information to know about. In fact, personally I would call getting that information but missing out on the class a net win. As long as they don't start using genome studies to test for intelligence, aggression, or work ethic I honestly think that the right laws and regulations can control the situation.
In other words, it's a "that's funny..." kind of moment.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...'"
-Asimov
Hardly the same thing, in my opinion. We know the power densities required to move cargo and people through the air at acceptable speeds and solar just cannot realistically supply it. This thing has the wing span of a 777 and the carrying capacity of an ultralight. Even assuming that you can increase the efficiency of the solar cells by five times you're still not talking anything remotely practical for commercial use.
Don't get me wrong, it's some very impressive technology. An unmanned variant might someday even has some military and civilian uses but it's never going to replace our chemically powered, high speed transportation aircraft.
Biking requires I bring a bike along everywhere I go. It's also much more difficult to converse with others while biking, especially biking at 30 mph. Not that I don't see what you're saying, but I don't think you're getting what the potential use for this would be. They want to connect airports to hotels, stadiums to bus stops and parking lots, areas where a large number of people are coming and going to/from the same place all at once. In that kind of situation a bike is somewhat less practical due to traffic and storage issues.
In all seriousness, why is this modded as funny? Twenty percent of reported domestic abusers are female, despite the fact that a man is less likely to turn in his wife and that the police are less likely to take the case seriously due to cultural effects. Some studies have even shown that female on male spousal abuse is the more common form, though it is less physically damaging. Mothers abuse children more frequently than fathers, physical confrontations in schools are becoming increasingly perpetrated by females, and all of that says nothing to the more traditional forms of psychological and emotional aggressiveness practiced by many women.
To be fair, if you browse the comments after things have settled down a bit you generally get the corrections long before most other sites get around to posting corrections (if they ever do). There were several comments in the earlier article that were rated up that say... well, basically exactly what this article says.
I guess I wasn't very clear. I mean inserting the ad into the video itself, not as a 'commercial' but as the video is playing it takes over the bottom 20% and/or shrinks the video to fit. Basically what most cable TV channels do when they are playing the credits of one show, they shrink it down and use some of the screen to advertise what's next. Ultimately, Google has the video, they could edit it as much as they want before serving it to you.
How many times have you gone looking through apps, found something that looked pretty good, installed it, and it was crap?
None. Not once in fact. You see, those reviews and stars are there for a reason. If something gets crap reviews, don't buy it. In exchange for requiring that tiny bit of due diligence, I have several apps that would never make it though Apple's approval process. Apps that would require voiding my warranty to get on the i-Devices.
Couldn't they just insert the ads directly into the video stream? It would certainly take a bit more processing time on their end, especially if they were trying to match the ad with you personally, but there's no reason it couldn't be done. And to make matters worse there wouldn't be any good way to close or remove the ad, so the ads would actually be worse with an HTML5 player.
That particular episode of Top Gear is (especially) derided as FUD. The car never ran out of batteries, they never recharged the car (just an off the cuff remark about it taking 16 hours to charge from their windmill(!?)), and the 'brake down' that they reported was a blown fuse (not a drive train one either, just a regular one like could and does happen in every car). The put the car into neutral and pushed it off the track to 'show what would happen if you ran out of charge', obviously you could say the exact same thing about running out of gas on the track.
To me, that really brought to light just how much the people at Top Gear are biased towards the cars that they like and against the cars that they don't.
Well, you could argue that most actresses essentially run their own business, they have assistants to a greater or lesser extent but in the end they are selling a product. Everyone always assumes that actresses are stupid, the reality is that while they are doubtlessly attractive, even if they're in the top .01% of women that still leaves an awful lot of competition. Look at Pamela Anderson, how much money has she made over the years selling what basically amounts to her personality and appearance? That does in fact take a kind of intelligence, maybe different from a PHD in economics kind of intelligence, but certainly still intelligence.
Somebody better lock up Winnie Cooper before she steals all our secrets then. (Not to mention a host of other beautiful women who just happen to be highly educated).
Hardly in the upper echelons but based on the security briefings I've received the answer is tiny, insignificant bits and pieces that you would tell anyone in passing but which can be put together to see the bigger picture. Of course, this was during a briefing about how important it was to keep secret things secret so that might be an exageration to instil a sense that the little things are important but the techniques they warned against backed up their statements. Engineers in particular are apparently susceptible to minor insults against a project they are working on. They will jump to devend it even if it means leaking non-trivial details.
As an example:
Spy - "I heard that the Air Force's new radios can't even do X"
Engineer - "What!? of course it can do X, we can even do X with Y and Z!"
Where X, Y, and Z are small details that are never the less classified information.
I run the portable apps version of FF which takes a very long time to boot so I leave it open as much as possible. Anywhere from 2-20 tabs, usually runs for weeks at a time without problems. Of course, I only have three extensions installed, one that is massively established (adblock), one that is trivial (mobile barcode generator), and one that occasionally causes problems (Ubiquity). I suspect that people with stability and/or memory leak problems are running extensions which are the root cause. Personally, I don't feel that it's fair to let the FF team off the hook for that though, they really need to find a good way to prevent addons from breaking the browser.
Actually we know the opposite, that none of the FF developers play Farmville. If they did the problem never would have made it into the wild.
There's a pretty big difference between spraying DDT on interior surfaces (to kill misquotes that are entering the home) and using it on breeding grounds (to massively reduce the mosquito population). Yes, killing the bugs that enter homes is nice, and probably reduces infection rates, but destroying the breeding population is the proven way to (nearly) eradicate malaria.
It's amazing, $5 million spent and no progress made on something that you could probably do with a few grand in software, and few grand in hardware and setup, and volunteer labor for the data entry. You could make it part of the tour for crying out loud, 'sit down and enter a few names as you go through', double or triple completed to ensure accuracy of course.
From the Koran: "The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old"
Or, possibly 16 and 19, depending on the translation. Just sayin.
DDT probably could, but no one is quite sure what that would to their environment over there so no one is willing to give it a shot. People forget that malaria was a problem in the Americas too until the mosquito population was decimated by pesticides massively slowing the infection rate; combined with rapid quarantine and treatment of infected individuals it all but eliminated malaria from two continents.
No, hating a person who is Jewish because of their behavior is fine. Hating all Jews because of their perceived behavior and opinions is racism. You don't see the difference there? In the first one, it is a person's own behavior that is causing others to hate them; in the second one, it is the behavior of others that causes the hatred.
Apparently you'd like to re-frame your statement to compare their 'Bigots live here' to '[X believer] lives here'. There's still a huge difference. There's lots of religious people who support gay marriage. There's presumably people who are against gay marriage who aren't believers (though probably not many). Just because an opinion is based on religious reasoning doesn't put that opinion above disdain from everyone else.
consider how we would view people spray-painting signs saying "Jews live here", say?
That seems like a false equivalence to me. There's a big difference between hating someone for their race and hating someone for their opinions and behavior. Hatred based on one's race is irrational, hatred based on one's behavior is not. I'm not saying that spray painting on the side of their house is right, just saying that it isn't the same as racial hatred.
They already spend 90% of their time posturing, put every act they do on public record and literally nothing will be done because no one can every be seen to be weak (and by that I mean reasonable, compromising, or swayed by facts).